Your coworker is analyzing a NIST soil standard for Nickel by atomic spectroscopy and finds recovery to be 145.9%. After freaking out over the poor results, she adds a 10.0 ppb nickel spike to that sample and determines a 95.4% spike recovery. She repeats the analysis of both standard and spike with the same results. She prepares and analyzes a whole new set of calibration standards. Using the new calibration curve she analyzes standard and spike again. She still gets the same results. Totally perplexed, she comes to you for advice. What will you tell her? What type of problem does she have (be specific)? How can she solve the problem?

catya that's not even a b or c

explanation:

two years ago, when picking flowers in the mountains back of yosemite valley, i found a book. it was blotted and storm-beaten; all of its outer pages were mealy and crumbly. the paper seemed to dissolve like the snow beneath which it had been buried, however; many of the inner pages were well preserved. and although all were more or less stained and torn, whole chapters were easily readable. this is the condition of the great open book of yosemite glaciers today; its granite pages have been torn and blurred by the same storms that wasted the castaway book.

two years ago, when picking flowers in the mountains back of yosemite valley; i found a book. it was blotted and storm-beaten, all of its outer pages were mealy and crumbly. the paper seemed to dissolve like the snow beneath which it had been buried, however, many of the inner pages were well preserved. and although all were more or less stained and torn; whole chapters were easily readable. this is the condition of the great open book of yosemite glaciers today, its granite pages have been torn and blurred by the same storms that wasted the castaway book.